• FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Sounds conspiratorial. Which of these problems did you find incomplete or dishonest?

      It’s mathematics, there’s no ‘trust me bro’ required the proof is either logically consistent or it isn’t.

      You can check the proofs, they’ve even provided them in lean: https://github.com/openai/math/tree/main/lean

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        How many of those over 700 proofs have you evaluated yourself?

        Whatever critcisms of the proofs by OpenAI is unlikely to be found in documents published by OpenAI.

        Here’s one criticism of one proof:

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-openai-solve-the-wrong-navier-stokes-problem/

        Edit: I’m not saying that none of those proofs are correct, but if you want a full and complete picture of what those proofs are and what they mean in context, you’re absolutely not going to get it from OpenAI. Mathematics is not “just trust me bro”, nor is it publishing press releases.

  • paraphrand@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Downvotes? Use your words.

    If this is a scam or indicative of evil, etc, it deserves upvotes. Otherwise it sort of looks like plugging your ears, guys.